Ah, well, I won't insist then...
But I'll be ready to pounce when I see the chance!!
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 8:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 7/18/2020 11:30 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> > I motion to reconsider, I don't believe it to be overly hypothetical when
> > it refers to how Agora itself works. It's a question about Agora's
> > fundamental way of working.
>
> First, I found this tidbit in CFJ 1895:
> > R2160(d) allows us to assume counterfactual conditions; that is, we are
> > permitted to treat certain, untrue conditions *as if* they were true.
> > But we also reject the impossible (you can't "do something an infinite
> > number of times" or act "as if 1+1=3", so it's meaningless to act "as if
> > you can"). Some assumptions are so counterfactual that to "assume" them
> > is to undermine the very nature of the game.
>
> Then, I thought I sent these Gratuitous Arguments when PSS recused emself,
> but just saw them in my Drafts folder:
>
> > This is enough of an "overly hypothetical extapolation [...] to
> > conditions that don't actually exist" to merit IRRELEVANT. If we start
> > to ignore any particular set of facts (one example is the question of
> > "personhood" of the deceased), the exact circumstances are important as
> > to how that's interpreted. I can think of several circumstances in
> > which we might start to "believe" that 2+2=5, all with different legal
> > consequences. At least a couple of these situations are such a stretch
> > from our current understandings that we can't say much about them,
> > unless we know the path that was taken to get there. So in the
> > abstract, this is IRRELEVANT.
>
> In other words, I agree with you that it *can* be relevant to talk about
> these things in a CFJ, but the details of the exact belief might matter,
> so if asked in this broad, abstract sense, it's overly hyphothetical.
>
> -G.
>
>
